In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Despite the general nonsense nature of the thread I do think this is a nuggest of interest.
talent - what is it?
At the moment I think it's an ephemeral umbrella term that we use to describe anything that can't simply be explained by lots of practice and training.
If I had to speculate I would have thought it includes genetics (what proportion of fast/slow twitch muscle you have, the length of your levers, how hard you can train before injury, etc.) neuropsychological factors (how receptive you are to propriaceptive feedback, balance) psychological factors (determination, attention span, how you respond to stressful situations) and loads more.
I think the interesting questions, are how many of those factors are really limiting factors (ie. if you don't have them you'll never be any good), which respond to training and practice, and which ones can't be trained but can be compensated for by strategic choices (ie. if you're genetically predisposed to slow twitch muscle fibres you compensate for your lack of power by specialising in endurance routes).
For sure, I think there is a 'natural aptitude' or how hard you can climb on your first day, which is probably not actually natural at all but based on your general level of fitness, co-ordination, balance and fine motor control and your ability at other related physical disciplines - eg. the anecdotal gymnast who topropes E whatever on their first day. But if you were to follow, say, 50 beginner climbers around for five or ten years after they started, would what they managed on their first day would be a good predictor of which ones end up getting really good? I suspect it wouldn't. Purely anecdotally, lots of the people I started with who were much better than me have since given up because they lost interest, or had other interests, or just started out good and didn't get that much better because 'natural ability' meant they didn't bother learning any more technique.
Similarly, if you were to take 50 climbers of different 'natural ability' and made them all boulder on grit for 5 days a week for 5 years, at the end of it, what would be the factors that separate the really good ones from the mediocre ones? Personally I suspect factors that affect how quickly you learn - like determination, focus, ability to learn new movements - are more relevant than the phsycial stuff which largely can be trained.
The point of this long winded ramble, is that although everyone will mumble about 'natural talent' no one really cares to put their finger on what it is and what it isn't, and I don't really think it's one simple thing that you either have or don't have. Steve McClure (I think) says of Rich Simpson that his main natural talent is his ability to train really, really hard. Dave Macleod speculates that Chris Sharma's main natural talent is his body's ability to absorb a high volume of training without injury.
Ultimately the difference between an outstanding climber and one who is merely very, very good might come down to talent or it might come down to years and years of hard work. But to come back round to the point of the thread, Gaia is a trade route from 20 years ago. It is only E8 6c, what, insecure/dangerous F7b+ - it is not 9b or V15. You don't have to be an outstanding climber to get up it, you 'merely' have to be very, very good.
If you take 50 climbers of varying ability, move them to Spain and make them sport climb 8 hours a day for 5 years, I will be amazed if the vast majority haven't made it to 8a in that time. Are male headpoints of E8 even newsworthy these days? The number of people crying 'this is not news!' suggests that it is not unusual. Not wanting to detract at all from the achievement which is clearly outstanding but I doubt in the general scheme of things it's hard enough that genetics or 'natural factors' are really what is making the difference, and I suspect that it is experience that counts. Plenty of people set themselves and achieve the goal of getting to F8a without raising any eyebrows, and if you can redpoint F8a then Gaia is probably a realistic proposition given enough experience on bold and insecure grit.
Is the OP going to go out and do it tomorrow? Realistically, no, but maybe he'll get on it and come away inspired to get a bit better. Yes, be realistic about how much work it's likely to take but what is wrong with a bit of inspiration? Mostly on this thread I see mid E grade leaders stridently shouting their opposition to the idea that someone who currently climbs HVS could have ideas above their station.